Wikipedia:Featured article review/Music of Minnesota/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 00:09, 15 March 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Listed Wikiprojects. Author long inactive.

Article has large passages that are compeltely unsourced. Many of the sources used, such as Myspace, and other ad hoc sites are far from RS. There is an undue weight on very modern music.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Research Quality related issues
 * http://204.169.52.42/history/ is not a secondary source published by a RS. Its tertiary linkspam.
 * SELF: "History of the Minnesota Opera". Minnesota Opera. Retrieved February 9 2006.
 * Unsigned Tertiary: Levy, Mark; Carl Rahkonen and Ain Haas. "Scandinavian and Baltic Music". Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume Two. New York and London: Garland Publishin
 * Dead: "History". First Avenue. Retrieved January 5 2006.
 * Dead: "Pulse of the Twin Cities". Pulse of the Twin Cities. Retrieved February 9 2006.
 * Deliberately unreliable publisher, take the work to RS/N: Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Feral House. ISBN 0-92291-571-7
 * Primary/SELF: "School of Music". University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 30 2006.
 * SELF: "About the Minnesota Orchestra". Minnesota Orchestra. Retrieved February 8 2006.

Citation Quality related issues
 * Grossly and completely unacceptable footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Now fixed; please see below. Eubulides (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Fifelfoo said. The sourcing is terrible, and there are red links out the yin-yang, most often referencing crap that shouldn't even be there. Furthermore, can someone take a whack at the linkspam at the bottom? This practically needs to be gutted and rebuilt. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone and tagged everything I saw unfit. I snipped "As well, prominent serious composers resident in the state include Libby Larsen, Stephen Paulus, and Timothy Mahr" from the intro because they're mentioned nowhere else in the article, and cut out a bunch of crud while slapping fact and other maintenance tags left and right. This is the most tagging I've done in my life. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This amount of tagging is troubling; it's not necessary to deface an article to achieve the aims of FAR. A good practice is to tag a bit, and then tag more depending on whether someone works on the article.  Also, please keep in the mind that the level of scholarship required for an article depends on the topic; in an article of this nature, we might expect less than scholarly sources.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all those tags are necessary. So many of the red links seem irrelevant, and so much of what should be sourced isn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RED and do not remove redlinks if an article meeting notability can be written; red links are how the encyclopedia is built, and are not a bad thing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. I only removed a couple red links, and tagged the rest with "relevant?" to flag for whether or not they should be linked at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. First of all, wow. That has to be one of the most annoying, unnecessary tag-bombings I have ever seen. It would have been much easier to put a note here or on the talk page that stated "Please check the red links for notability", and just put the citation needed tags after groups of sentences that needed referencing, rather than after every single sentence. I do agree that the article is very short on citations, has questionable sources (Ref #14, Anderson Jr., G.R, is a blog), needs referencing formatting, and need work on the prose and deciding whether all of the included information is relevant to the article. The external links section could use a cleaning, and the lead could stand to be expanded. Also, File:Slug-Atmosphere-20030727.jpg (the image of Atmosphere), needs a description. Dana boomer (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also redundant tagging; it's not necessary to tag the top of a section as well as individual items within the section-- one or the other. And then the top of the article as well.  I do think this is the most defacement I've ever seen of an article at FAR, and don't find it helpful.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I went back and removed all the Off-topic? tags and a couple other redundant tags. I think that most of the other maintenance tags should stand. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When there are a lot of problems, it isn't usually necessary to tag everywhere, as highlighting tools are usually to point out the abnormal, but if unsourced parts are the norm...Still I think in Louisville, Kentucky, one of the topic custodians asked for everything to be tagged to remind him, and about 80% of the article was tagged  YellowMonkey   ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This one definitely needs every tag I put on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TPH, for removing a large portion of the tags. Between the ones still left and the comments on this page, interested editors should be able to get a good feel for what needs to be done on the article. If someone pops up during the review phase to work on the article, we can always add more tags after the ones already there have been taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fair-use rationales for the audio clips are far too weak. They bear little relevance to Minnesota, and not enough in my opinion to merit inclusion. These groups are not influenced by Minnesota or strongly connected to Minnesota in the public mind. They draw their influences from other sources. Simiarly, the article as a whole appears to be a miscellaneous collection of Minnesota-related snippets rather than an encyclopedic treatment of a defined topic. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed this out in the rewrite tag. Indeed it feels far more like an infodump than a true article. It jumps willy nilly from one to another. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold, Delist, it appears that no one is willing to work on the issues identified, only three edits in the last few days. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to hold, work underway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delist per my maintenance tags and the fact that no one is willing to fix up the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)
 * Hold, Delist, as no work has been completed on the identified issues. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to hold for now, as work is underway. Dana boomer (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist - Referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just found out this FA was listed here. I can go through it and clean it up in maybe a week or two. Let me know. I would rather fix it than start over at GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. In 24 hours we went to today from yesterday. Sorry to come in so late. Think we'll make it? -SusanLesch (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've made a great start on improving the article. When interest is shown in improving the article, the FARC can, and will, be held open as long as necessary. The process is more about improving articles to current standards rather than delisting them. Dana boomer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great news! I am in Minneapolis for a couple weeks and have access to the public library if need be. Thanks very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see work is underway now, and good progress is being made. I've done a bit of MoS and citation cleanup. I've encountered several claims about bands, etc. sourced to themselves; care must be taken that claims are cited to independent reliable sources, and this will need review. Why was this section deleted? Byron is listed in citations but not in references. Curious about choice of musical genre and those that are missing: no opera, musical theatre, etc? For example, UMinn's BFA in musical theatre is not mentioned in the education section, and the word "Guthrie" doesn't appear anywhere in the article (!! Live at the Guthrie concert series), so more work will be needed on comprehensiveness. Also, attention to notability is needed: any group, organization, festival, etc mentioned here should only be here if it meets Wiki notability, but there is an absence of redlinks in the article. Anything notable should be redlinked, anything not notable shouldn't be included. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, thanks a lot for your help. I think most of the bands are cited to Billboard or City Pages or to a book now. I made some drastic cuts to the venues lists and the list of festivals (most seem to be defunct) and cut the section on electronic/dance music (none of them were cited). Byron fixed. To answer your question, "popular music" didn't seem like a type of music, so the text of that section moved to rock. I don't see musical theater in the source for UofM ("Degree programs") but would be happy to add it if it turns up. The Guthrie is mostly a theater I think, but I will add it since you found a Rosanne Cash concert. The tag used to say the article had too many red links so I took them out. I understand there are other viewpoints so can add some back if you like. Also, one of the music samples was missing a source so it is nominated for deletion. Rationale for fair use has been added to the only one left. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that info about redlinks was completely incorrect (see FAR above), and redlinks should be re-established where notability is met (see WP:RED). Here's UMinn BFA Musical Theatre:, although you may locate a better source.  What is happening with the jazz section?  Also, Guthrie has a musical concert series; is that not well known there (see link I provided above).  Looking much better now!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if worth including, but ... "The Live at the Guthrie concert series has a long-standing history of providing patrons with an eclectic mix of high-caliber music and comedy appealing to a wide range of audiences. Illustrious performers such as James Taylor, Elton John, Robin Williams, Lyle Lovett and the Indigo Girls all performed at the Guthrie in the early years of their careers. More recent performers have included Al Green, Keb' Mo' and Chris Botti." Might need an independent source if added.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Three red links added. Jazz section added but one source is to the Peterson family itself. You know when the Guthrie and Walker were next door to each other, concerts there did matter a great deal. The promoter only lists one concert there now (Roseanne Cash). -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Image of Prince on top works in Firefox but I don't know about IE? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nice job with improvements on Referencing. Delist stricken, for now. I still see lots of short paragraphs and subsections, however. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whew, thank you, Cirt. Any area that you think needs work? Some of those short or one-sentence sections have been rolled into bigger ones. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Queries (questions, not suggestions):
 * 1) Would Dylan make a better lead image than Prince?
 * I agree Dylan is a more important artist, but not in relation to Minnesota. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not clear on the demarcation between Blues and Rhythm and blues; can these two sections be combined into "Rhythm and blues"  (and the term "R&B" needs to be defined and linked).
 * Wikilinks added for both genres. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The Music in the US template in the lead is still doing something strange to formatting (large text offset): I don't know how to fix it.
 * Bummer. In what browser? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IE8; if no one knows how to fix it, I'll ask Gimme. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK maybe he or she can help. I don't have IE anymore. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The article needs an image and alt text review; if no one does it, I'll ping some people.
 * I expect you'll have to ping someone. I added alt text for everything here. -SusanLesch (talk)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I took a quick look at the alt text.
 * Three images still lack alt text (please see the "alt text" button at upper right of this review page); can you please fix them?
 * Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Verifiability and repetition. In general, alt text should not contain proper names or other material unless they're obvious to a non-expert (please see WP:ALT and WP:ALT), should not duplicate the caption (see WP:ALT), so could you please reword and/or remove the following phrases: "Prince", "cast members", "MacPhail building" ("MAC PHAIL SCHOOL" suffices), "MacPhail building" (duplicates caption), "First Avenue", "1st Avenue", "Prudence Johnson", "Keillor".
 * Removed and reworded. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Essence. Please briefly describe what William MacPhail looks like in his image (see WP:ALT) rather than wasting time on not-that-relevant details such as "circular" and "upper right", and please describe the modern MacPhail building rather than wasting time on the cyclist (see WP:ALT, in particular the example of how not to describe the Abbey Road building). The alt text for File:MPR-2006-12-19.jpg should briefly mention the context for the electric sign, since most of the image is devoted to that context. For File:KBR label.JPG the alt text should mention that the label and logo are circular, as that's the most striking visual aspect. Portraits should briefly state the gender and approximate age of the people being pictured; see WP:ALT for guidance.
 * Added some more and hope it's what is needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Punctuation. Please see WP:ALT for advice on punctuation (it should be similar to captions).
 * Thank you. Added some caps and periods. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that work; it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Should Judy Garland have a mention? Are any of the sources listed about midpage here worht exploring? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes! Garland added, with picture. Thanks very much for a good idea!
 * I don't see any important missed sources right away (and now have a list of things from Elcobbola to deal with). -SusanLesch (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist: numerous criterion three issues:
 * File:Prince-crop.jpg - Appears to be a copyvio
 * Wow! Good work finding that! How did you ever find it? I can replace with another portrait. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To bore you: I got lucky this was from a show in Switzerland. My computer/OS/browser/etc are German, so Google searches return German language results. This was in an article called Letzte Zuckungen der Popkultur des 20. Jahrhunderts, which gave me the AP author's name, so I could locate an English language source.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:ApolloClub.jpg - Source is a deadlink. Archive.org version does not provide a publication date.  Publication and creation are not the same thing; how can we verify pre-1.1.1923 publication?
 * The Minneapolis Public Library was taken over by Hennepin County, who moved the link. The MPL History of Minneapolis on "Music" is here. Applies to this one and the next one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Link is fixed, but it doesn't address the issue of needing a publication date. Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed. I don't know when it was published. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not striken by me, but I agree it's resolved (removed). Эlcobbola  talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:MacPhail.jpg - Source is a deadlink.
 * Found again, see previous. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:The Ordway Center.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP (for self-made works, which this presumably is, this means an explicit assertion of authorship. A PD-self license is not sufficient).
 * Removing this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:KBR label.JPG - Is a derivative work. The threshold of originality is quite low; the Kay Bank logo may be sufficiently original to be eligible for copyright protection.
 * Removed.
 * File:Highspirits.jpg - WP:DUCK copyvio. A drive-by upload and only contribution from a red link.  Highly doubtful this user is indeed a representative of Amos Records and/or has authorization to license on its behalf.  This would need an OTRS ticket. (The High Spirits article, by the way, indicates the band's label to be Soma Records, not Amos.)
 * Removed.
 * File:Orch hall.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. As per above, an explicit assertion of authorship is needed.  A hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not sufficient.
 * I can ask the author, who is I believe still active, to address this one.
 * That would be fine; it's an easily remediable issue. Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one of mine. RxS (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, the explicit assertion of authorship was performed when I released it into the public domain and linked it (via the act of uploading) to my userpage. I'm not sure what deleted en.wiki page is being refered to but if it's my userpage, it's still there. If there's some other assertion I need to make let me know but it appears to me that the act of licensing it as I did should be fine for these purposes. RxS (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted from en.wiki - log. The image is now a Commons shine through.  Because of a poorly-written transfer script, it now credits you as the uploader, which isn't necessarily the same as being its author.  You are indeed the author, so all that's needed is a verbiage change to make that clear.  It's not an issue of the license you chose, but making clear that you are authorized to chose such a license (we want that clarity because of the common issue people have of believing derivative works are theirs to license as they chose).  Эlcobbola  talk 13:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Эlcobbola, I edited the image page in the commons to say that RxS is the author. He or she doesn't have a commons account. Seems to me that should be fine? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Prince-How Come U Don't Call Me Anymore.ogg - NFCC#10C requires a "specific" rationale and WP:FURG, incorporated therein by reference, requires a "detailed" rationale. Current rationale is ambiguous and does not articulate the contribution to the reader's understanding.  That notwithstanding, I'm very hard pressed to believe a free demonstration of Minnesota music (NFCC#1) could not be obtained.
 * Removed. By the way, free music doesn't equate to what is being deleted.
 * Depends on how one defines "equal" (of course Prince is unique), but, for the purposes of MN music, there are no doubt free songs that could make the same contribution to reader understanding of this particular topic (not to mention free and non-free media alike that are better suited, e.g. "The Fair" by Anne Reed - "Minnesota, Minnesota, we are south of Manitoba, east of North Dakota, ...")  Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that song, but have seen Ms. Reed. Do you have a source? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not a free one; I have the song on Keepers, which is a MPR Morning Show CD. It's got to be from the early 90s; I dont know whether they're still made/sold.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the Reed song and a few others. Thanks for the clue. Since neither is free, I stick by what I said before, that this doesn't equate to what was deleted (a soul solo isn't the same as a folk ditty that happens to include the name of the state). Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Quite.  A song irrelevant to Minnesota by someone who merely happens to be from the state and a song about a prominent aspect of Minnesota culture by someone who merely happens to be from the state are indeed not equal.  It was brought up merely because the Prince song was a particularly injudicious choice.  No need to belabor a moot point, as neither are acceptable.  Эlcobbola  talk 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Flickr - moses namkung - Atmosphere 1.jpg - Something's fishy here. The source Flickr page indicates all rights are reserved; it received a Flickr review on 24 December 2009, however, clearing the CC-by 2.0 license.  Very curious that the Flickr user would have changed the license in the short period of time between now and then, especially as the image has been on Flickr since August.  All other images in the Flickr user's photostream reserve all rights.  MBot has been known to make mistakes.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is weird at all. People change their Flickr licenses whenever they like. I've been in this situation myself--sent a Flickr user an email and had them change the rights on all of their photographs. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The weirdness is not that it changed, but the time frame. As is, it isn't an opposable (delistable?) issue and was included here for completeness, but article's exemplifying our best work are better off without these sorts of issues.  Remedies would be to contact the Flickr user to confirm the change and file with OTRS, or find an alternative image.  If the image is to stay, I wouldn't object over it, but I'd leave it unstricken for others to consider.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced with an image where the author changed his license for Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Delist? Would you like to revisit that? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking good, but now the quality of the image in the lead is poor-- perhaps switching the lead image to Dylan might help? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I thought that picture of Prince was great--how many people would raise their little finger like that? But swapped for Dylan. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: File:Orch hall.jpg needs an assertion of authorship per above; delist is stricken anticipating resolution of this issue. Эlcobbola  talk 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * SusanLesch has made massive improvements from this version; now we need some declarations from editors who know the content area. Otherwise, default at FAR is Keep.  Nice work!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iffy.
 * Is Unterberger's book (pub. in London) a reliable source? First citation is a big claim.
 * See Richie Unterberger and Rough Guides. Rough Guides profile of Unterberger, SF Weekly feature, another profile, another, and other books published. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. He was introducing Minneapolis (at the time) as unique among cities. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the images are rather dark; many are too small.
 * Agree with you. The photo of Northrop Auditorium is too dark as is the portrait of Paul Westerberg. But I don't think you will find another free Westerberg photo growing on trees. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "too small". No pixels are used anywhere in this article. So that must be your default. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stubby paragraphs; some superficial treatment. Tony   (talk)  11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you and have added only a mention of numerous artists. I decided it is better to mention than not. What I am looking for is what Sandy noted above--the input of anyone with knowlege of this subject who can say what I left out. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Time passes. I have limited time available now to work on this article. I am no longer in Minneapolis (and thus can't run to the library). You can find me at Jeannette Piccard which was delisted from GA without warning. You can ping me on my talk page if you need anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, with the major cleanup and citation, and in the absence of anyone to nitpick the content, I opine for the default keep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm finding minor glitches; can we please entice someone to run through the text one more time? Consistency in p. vs. pp., some missing punctuation, missing publishers, difference in cite web vs. cite news, and in spite of the vagaries of the citation templates, hard print sources should be in italics.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking, pending someone to review this article for comprehensiveness. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, my eye isn't as good as yours but I went through the article top to bottom for spelling and grammar stuff, and went through all of the sources. Fixed my sloppy "p." and "pp." and put the names of papers in italics. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is still going on? Awesome work on the copy editing and sourcing. Looks fine now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi you guys. Although it was really nice of you to keep this FARC open so I had time to cite everything, I don't think it is fair to keep this open indefinitely. A couple days ago I had every source fixed for Sandy. Now we have an IP address adding incomplete sentences and incomplete sources. I will fix everything this person added, but is it too much to ask that this FARC be closed as soon as possible? Thank you. -19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you to IP address 173.196.66.81 for several additions. Unfortunately links to beatworld.com aren't sufficient to source the electro/dance music section. The two sources that were there are mine and repeat other parts of the article. In any case I kept your other additions, including one really weak source (West Allis High School) because Billboard itself does not maintain a list back that far (1975) past numbers 1 through 10. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, we have a new problem now, with an IP editing (for the third time) in ways that will jeopardize FA status. Might as well wait 'til the IP is done to see what can be cleaned up.  Seems to be the same IP who made unsourced edits a while back, and since his IP address changes, not much can be done.  Unless the article can be semi-protected.  But we can't just close a FAR without Keep declarations (although you've done a fine job, Susan, and your efforts are appreciated!) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I submit this revision for FARC. I am losing tolerance for other points of view. Including those of you who have failed to register "Keep". -SusanLesch (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is restored to what I can cite for the Electro/Dance section, and keeps the radio section. What are you waiting for? I replied to Sandy on January 25 that I went through this top to bottom. On January 28, all hell broke loose and someone had to semi-protect this. I encourage you guys to please close this FARC as soon as you are able. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan. First of all, let me say that I will be going through the article in just a minute to be able to give you any final comments I may have, and will change my "vote" accordingly. Part of the issue with not closing the FARC as promptly as you may wish is that YellowMonkey is the only really active FAR delegate - Joel and Marskell have been away for a while and Raul doesn't usually get involved. As YM was the one who initiated this FAR, he can't be the one to close it. That means that it will have to wait until either 1. New delegates are appointed (a brief mention of this was made on the FAR talk page today, which is the only reason I mention this) or 2. Raul or one of the inactive delegates will have to close it. This, combined with the lack of keep votes, is why the FARC hasn't been closed yet. Sometimes FARCs must hang around for a long while (see some of the articles below this one on the FAR page), before they gather a sufficient number of keeps - this article is not a lone case, so please be patient. As I said before, I should have my own set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support, pending Comprehensiveness and Source Reviews Comments
 * First of all, I'm not a music expert, and so I can't comment on comprehensiveness. I dropped a note to the Music WP, since they don't seem to have been notified of the FAR, and that note can be found here. Before being kept, this article needs a thorough review by a music expert to make sure that all of the information that needs to be included is and that the sources would all be considered "high quality" by someone in the music world. This is of course supposing that such an expert can be found and would be interested in this work.
 * The lead could use some expanding. Although it is four paragraphs long, which fits with WP:LEAD, all four paragraphs are quite short. The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, without providing original information.
 * I would still like to see the lead expanded further. However, since it does technically meet the requirements outlined by WP:LEAD, I shall hold my peace for now :)

These are my initial comments, I will be back to add more comments on the prose after I have done a full run-through of the article. I hope that the notes I have left for various users and WikiProjects will help this article to remain a FA. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Prose issues:
 * Some books use the short format in-line with more information in the References section, while others have full information in-line. This should be standardized.
 * Ref #69 (IMDB) needs to be fully formatted.
 * Ref #80 (Northern Light "Minnesota" on Billboard chart in "Top Songs from 1975" . West Allis Central High School.) should be sourced to something better than a high school reunion website.
 * I'm questioning the use of Ref #169 (YouTube). Although YouTube itself is not automatically an unreliable source, what gives the account "radiotapes" the right to post this news broadcast? Unless they have specific copyright to this broadcast, they are posting it against copyright, and this makes it unusable as a source.
 * There are several other references I'm not sure about, but I'm not the greatest at picking out unreliable references, so I have dropped a note at User:Ealdgyth's talk page, to see if she has the time to do a sourcing run-through of the article.
 * Lead, "Minneapolis, the northernmost major city on the Mississippi River," what does its location have to do with music?
 * History, "Minneapolis' most famous performers were the descendants of Norwegians Eleonora and Ethel Olson and Ernest and Clarence Iverson (Slim Jim & the Vagabond Kid)" This needs a separation to show that Eleonora etc were the descendents, not that the famous performers descended from them. When I first read it I thought "it's nice to know who the parents were, but who were the performers", until I read it again and realized what it actually meant.
 * Education section. The first paragraph and the first sentence and a half of the second paragraph are largely redundant. These could easily be combined and trimmed of repetition, allowing for tighter, more easily readable prose.
 * Education section. Do no colleges offer anything beyond a bachelors degree in music-related fields? For an example, see the University of Minnesota's website here which offers both masters and doctoral degrees in music.
 * Venues, "a few venues catering to all ages crowds," This is rather awkwardly worded, perhaps "crowds of all ages"?
 * Venues, "Defunct but historically important venues include the Pence Opera House,[46] the Coffeehouse Extempore or Extemporé,[47] the Uptown Bar,[48] and the ballrooms including the Prom Ballroom and Treasure Inn in Saint Paul and the Marigold Ballroom and the Flame Cafe[49] in Minneapolis, which featured prominent jazz, rock, country and other bands in the mid-20th century." Run-on sentence, perhaps split into two?
 * Radio, "throughout the country and indeed throughout the world". Redundant wording, "indeed" is rather POV.
 * Recording studios and record stores, "The studio had big hits from The Trashmen ("Surfin' Bird") and Dave Dudley ("Six Days on the Road"), The Underbeats, The Chancellors, The High Spirits, The Castaways ("Liar, Liar" in 1965), which helped popularize Soma Records and a distinctive Kay Bank style based on using three-track recording and echo effects." Run-on, and some issues with grammar. Perhaps split, and check the use of "and" then commas.
 * Classical, choral and opera, "orchestras to perform on the radio and to record." Worded a bit funny. I understand what it's trying to say, but it could definitely flow better.
 * This still reads a bit oddly, but I guess it's fine.


 * Classical, choral and opera, "With an early reputation as "progressive (and) 'alternative'"[98] when it merged with Saint Paul Opera in 1975, the Minnesota Opera began to include traditional works in its repertory." Flow. Needs something between alternative and when to help the transition.
 * Folk music, "Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, but the state's folk music is best known in the areas of Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian musics because these immigrants settled in rural farming areas in communities that retained Old World social and religious patterns and the context for music performance." Run on sentence, and I'm really not sure what the end part is trying to say.
 * Folk music, "cultural identities grew blurred." I think you could drop the "grew".
 * Folk music, "Norwegians and Swedes very frequently". I think you could drop the "very", it's redundant.
 * Folk music, "As of 2007, Dylan maintained a home in Minnesota." Could this be updated?
 * It would be nice but I don't think so. The author interviewed Dylan once during the 1980s and fortunately had some knowledge of him at the time he wrote the book. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, it would be something to keep in mind in case you run across any references to it in the future.

I've checked up through the Music about Minnesota section. Later this evening I will return and add my comments about the rest of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I've completed my review of the prose, and have added several more issues to the list. When these issues have been resolved, I will be able to add my conditional support, with a full support pending a review of comprehensiveness and sources. Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blues, "Strother, who knew each other, were". First, what does it matter that they knew each other, and second, most well-known musicians who perform the same genre in the same city know (or at least know of) each other, so this isn't anything special.
 * In the various genre sections there are a lot of short paragraphs, which make the article quite choppy. Please try to combine some of these so that the article as a whole flows better.
 * The various genre sections still read as lists of unconnected facts with no connecting narrative. IMO, simply listing various bands/singers/composers that have ties to Minnesota doesn't meet the "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" requirement that FA asks of its articles. The first two paragraphs of the Rhythm and blues section is how I would like to see the rest of the genre sections read. The prose flows from thought to thought, with no abrupt jumps, and connects between artists.
 * Hi, Dana. Just a check in. Everything on your list has been done, except writing the lead and work on the genre sections writing. Thanks very much for taking your time. Your comments are easy to follow and they all make sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Small introductions and transitions written for the genres. I removed the citations from the lead. Probably not "engaging, even brilliant" but I hope serviceable. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response, Susan. I have added my provisional support as promised. In the process of looking over the article again I have made a few tweaks, mainly to reference formatting and a little bit of copyediting. Please let me know if there's an issue with any of the change I made. I look forward to this article being kept, and hope that content and sourcing experts stop by soon! As a note on sourcing experts, I just dropped a note on the subject to User:Rafablu88, who I just remembered usually does all of the source checking on music FACs, so he may be dropping by as well. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dana boomer. Happy to see conditional support. Your changes look good to me. Regarding the IP addresses' request for a section on Electro/Dance, I looked at the websites of Minneapolis television channels 4, 5, 9 and 11 as well as the Minnesota Broadcasters Association (who were in the YouTube video) and didn't find anything for the search phrase "Beat Radio". I agree with Dana's comment that the newscasts are copyrighted. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of response from music editors, I have dropped a further note on User talk:A Knight Who Says Ni, who appears to be one of the more active editors on the music project talk pages right now. Hopefully the direct appeal will get a music person over here to make any final comments. I have also struck the part of my vote that referred to sources, as that review has been completed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Source comments What makes this reliable?
 * http://www.jazzpolice.com/content/view/7189/115/
 * Agree. Removed a sentence and this source. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This one seems a commercial store used for factual info. I lean slightly reliable, but I'd like to hear what others think:
 * http://www.musicoutfitters.com/artists/larson.htm
 * Important reference for today's playing of traditional music. I left this for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the use of IMDb and Amazon for basic, physical info, but have a few nitpicks:
 * The ISBNs in the Reflist need conformity of style and number of numbers. Pick a simple 10 number version with no dashes for all the books.
 * Done. Except Keller whose publisher only gives 13 digits. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still an OCLC on Noran. Is there no ISBN for that one? RB88 (T) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added the OCLC on Noran, I believe, and I looked, but couldn't find an ISBN. Worldcat doesn't list one, and they are usually quite definitive in their entries. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Woops, I don't think Noran's book has an ISBN. I looked in Amazon and Google. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are all those refs used? If not, some may need to be removed or put into Further reading.
 * Double checked. Yes, every one of them is used (sometimes only once). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If some are only used once, then they have to be placed in the footnotes instead of being in both sections for a single cite. RB88 (T) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No they don't. A lot of editors (me included) like to keep things consistent and have all book reference be in the short form in the footnotes. There is nothing that rules against this in the sourcing guidelines, and this has not been brought up in the recent FACs I've had that sported this style of referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just think it improves readership and is bit less clunky. RB88 (T) 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the Blegen cite based on the url link, but I don't think it's right.
 * Swapped for a better reference. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the Nute ref.
 * May I ask why so we can fix it? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I sorted it out. RB88 (T) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Mayer ref had a year in location. I put it in brackets but it might need to be removed.
 * Changed to "origyear". -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Noran ref has the same title and publisher. Somehow, I don't think that's right.
 * In this weird case it is. (First Avenue is both the subject and the publisher.) -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Make sure all the magazine urls have a retrieval date for internal consistency. Some are missing one.
 * Good catch! A lot of "accessdate" added. Thanks very much for your review and edits. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 17:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Delist My concern with this article is not the facts, or the citations (which I don't have time to check), but the quality of the writing. I'll hop in and out, making changes as I go to make it flow a little better, but right now I don't believe that its at FA standard.  It'll take time to improve it all, there's a lot of text there. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another look, and while making minor changes here and there I have come to the conclusion that this article needs a major re-write to maintain its FA status. There are just too many instances of poor wording, like "The MacPhail Center for Music offers classes on 35 different instruments and also tuition in the Suzuki method and art therapy,[15] by instructors from all over the world, to more than 7,200 students at 45 locations".  I can make changes to the most obvious errors, but I don't have anywhere near enough time to do everything that this article needs.  In the end, its going to have to be the article's primary contributors who sort this out. Parrot of Doom 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not an expert, but article and its referencing look good.  A lot of improvement was accomplished. --doncram (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist: Frankly, a very poor article. The writing is appalling and runs the gambit from being sloppy and redundant ("brought with them French chansons" - as opposed to brought with someone else?) to editorializing and OR ("Rock and roll has a surprisingly long history in the state" - surprising to whom?)  Thoughts are not organized or clear (e.g. first paragraph of the history section discusses the traditional music brought by early Europeans, yet somehow ends on "Modern-day traditional dance" and is then succeeded with a paragraph returning to discussion of European settlers.  Completely irrelevant Garland information finishes the section.  Also appears to fail 1C; there are dozens of books related to this topic that appear not to have been considered (no "thorough and representative survey").  Here's several possible sources I found with a two minute search:
 * Sherman, John K. (1958). Music and theater in Minnesota history.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
 * Parthun, Paul Robert (1984). Ojibwe music in Minnesota. University Microfilms
 * Björnson, Val (1969). The history of Minnesota. Lewis Historical Pub. Co. (there are at least two volumes)
 * Larson, LeRoy Wilbur (1983). Scandinavian-American folk dance music of the Norwegians in Minnesota. University of Microfilms International
 * Tourville, Tom W. (1990) Minnesota rocked!!: the 1960's : a discography & guide to the music & the people of Minnesota from the 1960's. T.W. Tourville
 * Gillis, Frank James (1958). Minnesota music in the nineteenth century.  University of Minnesota Press
 * Sterling, Mick (2005). The Long Ride Home: A Life in the Minnesota Music Scene. Crotalus Publishing.  ISBN 0974186058
 * Beck, Roger Lawrence. (1987) Military music at Fort Snelling, Minnesota from 1819 to 1858. University of Minnesota
 * Legg, Douglas B. (1982). Minnesota folk music and folklore in the recorded collections of the Archive of Folk Culture. Library of Congress, Archive of Folk Culture
 * Have these been consulted? Have the dozens of others?  Article doesn't even appear to satisfy WP:LEAD.  "Venues" and "Recording studies and record stores" are important enough to have level two headers, but receive no mention in the lead.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist : while I applaud the effort and massive improvements made by SusanLesch, Parrot of Doom's and Elcobbola's concerns are too significant to overlook, and this review has already run too long. Delisting, with an aim towards improving the prose and sourcing and a return to FAC, would be more in order at this stage.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist struck, copyedit underway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to your views, but I find the pile-on "delist" votes to be late. We had two "keep" votes and a conditional support before Parrot of Doom, Эlcobbola and SandyGeorgia chimed in on the last day. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not and not aware of a time limit, let alone this being "the last day". Perhaps you would care to point out where one can find this information on FAR-instructions?  Am I not reading "extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is  receiving attention" correctly?  What, by the way, does time have to do with anything?  Does this article meet the criteria or does it not?  Am I to understand that it's acceptable to retain non-compliant articles if the timing of concerns is perceived as being inconvenient?  Эlcobbola  talk 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Эlcobbola. I understand time has run out, looking at Sandy's message on User_talk:Raul654. That's what I mean by pile-on "delist" votes being "late" and on the "last day". Last time I looked was yesterday when things looked promising. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (to SusanLesch) - it isn't as though the article suffers only from poor grammar. I do my best (which isn't the best here), but I genuinely struggled to understand much of the article's content because of the way it is written.  That, in my opinion, would take more time than is appropriate for a passing editor to try and solve, moreso for someone who lives on a different continent. Parrot of Doom 12:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Parrot of Doom. I apologize. I was having a bad day that day. It's very nice of you to try to help fix this article. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist since this is like trying to cook a steak by breathing on it. Prose issues still stand; needs a lot more work per consensus. If all we're going to do is quibble about everything for more than FOUR MONTHS, then clearly this is not FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Keep now that it's finally been copy edited. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is unchanged, even after the copyedit. A few random selections, and I didn't have to go searching.  I don't think any explanation is required:


 * The Minnesota Orchestra was founded in 1903 as the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra. Although it was among the first to perform on the radio and to record,[71] it initially was not known as one of the country's great orchestras. In the 1930s, Eugene Ormandy transformed it into an excellent ensemble and expanded its repertory, making it the most-recorded orchestra in the United States, and giving it an international reputation.[72][73] Other illustrious conductors included Dimitri Mitropoulos and Antal Dorati.[74]
 * Minneapolis became noted as a center for rhythm and blues (R&B) in the 1980s, when the singing star Prince rose to fame. The city had little history in African American popular music, such as R&B, until Prince debuted in 1978. He became the first architect of the Minneapolis sound, a funk, rock and disco-influenced style of R&B, and inspired a legion of subsequent performers, including the Prince-related acts The Time, Wendy & Lisa and Vanity 6.[116]
 * Minnesota is home to many ethnic groups, who bought with them the folk music of their homelands. When these immigrants settled in rural farming areas, their communities retained Old World social and religious patterns that gave a context for music performance.[5] These ethnic communities frequently settled near each other, in Minnesota and in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota and South Dakota, and their musical and cultural identities blurred

Parrot of Doom 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * SusanLesch asked me to revisit; I remain of the opinion that this article should be delisted.  While the prose has improved, there are still numerous issues, for example WP:PEACOCK in the lead (Talented musicians), poor phrasing ("The studio had hits..." - the studio didn't "have" them; they were recorded therein), the bizarre Garland "paragraph" remains, etc.  Prose work, additionally, does not address the aforementioned 1C concerns. 14:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Elcobbola. I fixed the specifics you mention. The 1C problem is one of perspective I think. The books that you found might be good but the material they cover is for the most part covered already by sources in use here (there is no need for another book on most of the subjects in your list). Thank you for returning to give this another look. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if they've not even been consulted, how are we able to make the determination that information therein is entirely redundant? There's a whole book about Ojibwe music; only Dakota is discussed.  There's a whole book about military music; a topic not at all discussed.  There's a whole book about nineteenth century music; coverage is this century is largely non-existent (refer to the nominator's concern of bias towards modern music).  I realize a lot of this may be more appropriate for a spin-off (e.g. History of music in Minnesota), but, as they apparently have not been consulted, how do we know that they don't contain relevant information about influence, etc.?  A "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic" (WIAFA 1C) has simply not been conducted.  Эlcobbola  talk 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think asking anyone to consult every book on a topic is nuts. The Métis who are part Chippewa (Ojibwe) are mentioned but Dakota history might be more pertinent to the state. John Philip Sousa's march though no more about military music is mentioned. The goal here is not to write a Ph.D. thesis, but rather to create an overview. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff where I requested "to consult every book on a topic".  That would, of course, be nuts.  The titles and contents of several books not consulted, however, suggest a gap in comprehensiveness.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I disagree. Scandinavian immigrants dominated and their nineteenth century music for example is covered in the "History" and "Folk" sections. To chose another from your list, the 1960s are, if anything, overrepresented in the sections on "Rock" and "Recording studios". -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's ok to disagree and that's indeed why the FA director and delegates get paid the big bucks.  Again, however, my concern is not about the specifics of the history (i.e. event X occurred at time Y and place Z), but that the neglected sources may contain necessary "big picture" information.  Regardless, speculation of whether their material is covered in summary is nowhere near a "thorough and representative survey".  Survey the literature; if there's no new material to be added, then there's no issue.  But the survey needs to occur.  It's one thing when articles come to FAR because they've deteriorated in style and writing quality over time; it's another when the promoted version wasn't comprehensive or thoroughly researched to begin with (I'm aware standards have changed).   Эlcobbola  talk 18:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'm just wondering if there is any overview work or source out there from anywhere that has been found to be as comprehensive or more thorough than this article on the stated subject. In short: is there an article anywhere that is nearly as good as this one? If not, we are dealing with the best article on the subject to be found anywhere. If that's not good enough, to what standard is the article being held against? Lambanog (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.